So What Happened To Blacks After Slavery?

[IM2]

The links provided by EM2 here were mostly right on. Not exaggerated in the least. Historically accurate. I do not always agree with IM2, but this thread is fine and very educational. I hope some people here actually read at least a few of those interesting articles.

Thank you. We aren't supposed to agree on everything, we are two different men from two different experiences. But your honesty is respected.

 

[Oldestyle]

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

You're making my point for me. The slavery generation received substantial reparations. The people who actually suffered the wrongs, received the reparations.

If subsequent generations decided not to hold on to that land or decided that farming wasn't for them and sold that land to seek allegedly greener pastures in the inner cities of American metropolises, that doesn't change the fact that reparations have been paid.

No your point was not made. Whites continued committing atrocities which you owe us for. Subsequent generations did not just decide not to hold on to the land, they were fucking murdered and intimidated and land forcibly taken. You seem to ignore this in your attempt to gaslight but you don't get away with that here.

You want to cite one paragraph, but lets discuss the entire story.

So you start with this:

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

But you dare not discuss this part:

In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975.

What this says is 600,000 black farmers were forced off their property. Not that they decided to leave, chose to sell or determined that farming was not for them. On top of that, all blacks were not farmers.

So like I said, whites committed one atrocity which was slavery, then they committed another one after slavery by what was done to black landowners. Reparations are owed for each time an atrocity is committed. Had whites given blacks land and they really did what you claim, then reparations would not be asked for, but that is not what happened, you know that's not what happened therefore your point was not made and instead you have continued to validate my position by the fact I proved yours was incorrect and in fact false.

"In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975."
Are you familiar with the term "The Great Migration", IM2? There were very good reasons why the number of African-American farms went from 925,000 in 1920 to only 45,000 in 1975!

 

[Oldestyle]

You would like us to believe that Southern Whites "forced" blacks off of their farms in the south. In some cases that was indeed what happened but for the most part blacks in the south were induced to move north by factory jobs that paid 3 times what they were making working agriculture jobs in the south.

 

[IM2]

History according to IM2! Let not the facts get in the way of your narrative, Kiddies!

This is United States of America history. Documented history that you can look up and verify for yourselves, if you were so inclined.

I graduated with a degree in History, Mariyam! What IM2 is spamming is simply one version of history and as usual with him...it's not a very accurate version.

Apparently your history degree was a prize out of a cracker jack box because what I have posted have been supreme court decisions and historically correct facts. I also used information based on a book titled The Color of Law, written by a foremost expert on government policy. So you just can't deal with the truth and you want to dismissed what you cannot handle. What I have posted is 100 percent accurate.

 

[Oldestyle]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

 

[IM2]

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

You're making my point for me. The slavery generation received substantial reparations. The people who actually suffered the wrongs, received the reparations.

If subsequent generations decided not to hold on to that land or decided that farming wasn't for them and sold that land to seek allegedly greener pastures in the inner cities of American metropolises, that doesn't change the fact that reparations have been paid.

No your point was not made. Whites continued committing atrocities which you owe us for. Subsequent generations did not just decide not to hold on to the land, they were fucking murdered and intimidated and land forcibly taken. You seem to ignore this in your attempt to gaslight but you don't get away with that here.

You want to cite one paragraph, but lets discuss the entire story.

So you start with this:

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

But you dare not discuss this part:

In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975.

What this says is 600,000 black farmers were forced off their property. Not that they decided to leave, chose to sell or determined that farming was not for them. On top of that, all blacks were not farmers.

So like I said, whites committed one atrocity which was slavery, then they committed another one after slavery by what was done to black landowners. Reparations are owed for each time an atrocity is committed. Had whites given blacks land and they really did what you claim, then reparations would not be asked for, but that is not what happened, you know that's not what happened therefore your point was not made and instead you have continued to validate my position by the fact I proved yours was incorrect and in fact false.

"In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975."
Are you familiar with the term "The Great Migration", IM2? There were very good reasons why the number of African-American farms went from 925,000 in 1920 to only 45,000 in 1975!

I know what the great migration was. My parents and grandmother on my dads side participated in it. But that was not the cause of 600,000 blacks losing their farms.

 

[Oldestyle]

When I studied History the first thing I learned was to consider the source when reading accounts of things that supposedly took place. Historians have agendas too.

 

[Oldestyle]

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

You're making my point for me. The slavery generation received substantial reparations. The people who actually suffered the wrongs, received the reparations.

If subsequent generations decided not to hold on to that land or decided that farming wasn't for them and sold that land to seek allegedly greener pastures in the inner cities of American metropolises, that doesn't change the fact that reparations have been paid.

No your point was not made. Whites continued committing atrocities which you owe us for. Subsequent generations did not just decide not to hold on to the land, they were fucking murdered and intimidated and land forcibly taken. You seem to ignore this in your attempt to gaslight but you don't get away with that here.

You want to cite one paragraph, but lets discuss the entire story.

So you start with this:

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

But you dare not discuss this part:

In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975.

What this says is 600,000 black farmers were forced off their property. Not that they decided to leave, chose to sell or determined that farming was not for them. On top of that, all blacks were not farmers.

So like I said, whites committed one atrocity which was slavery, then they committed another one after slavery by what was done to black landowners. Reparations are owed for each time an atrocity is committed. Had whites given blacks land and they really did what you claim, then reparations would not be asked for, but that is not what happened, you know that's not what happened therefore your point was not made and instead you have continued to validate my position by the fact I proved yours was incorrect and in fact false.

"In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975."
Are you familiar with the term "The Great Migration", IM2? There were very good reasons why the number of African-American farms went from 925,000 in 1920 to only 45,000 in 1975!

I know what the great migration was. My parents and grandmother on my dads side participated in it. But that was not the cause of 600,000 blacks losing their farms.

So you think someone offering to pay you 3 times what you were making at your old job busting your back all day in the hot sun wasn't a reason for the migration? I think any unbiased observer would disagree with you, IM2. If those high paying jobs hadn't existed in the North...your parents and grandmother would have probably stayed right where they were.

 

[Lumpy 1]

This thread is specifically about what the government of these united states did to blacks after the years of slavery up until right now.

The republicans here want to take credit for ending slavery while simultaneously telling us that they should not be held responsible for what their ancestors did before they were born. In standard republican fashion everybody else must take responsibility but them. However in the 150 or so years after slavery things have happened that most of these guys don't want to discuss. It is time to take a look at what has happened.

Lincoln signed words on a piece of paper but were those words actually honored?

Not really.

At the time of "emancipation" 80 percent of Americas GNP was tied to slavery. America, not just the south. Blacks got none of the money. In January of 1865, Special Field Order 15 was issued. Special Field Orders No. 15 - Wikipedia In July 1865, Circular 13, Resource Sheet #7 was issued by General Howard which fully authorized the lease of 40 acres of land to the newly freed slaves. As a result of this action 40,000 former slaves began work on several hundred thousand acres of land.

President Andrew Johnson killed that by his doing so removed those 40,000 blacks off that land and destroyed any income they could make. Meanwhile Johnson advocated for the homestead act and wanted to take plantation land and distribute it to whites without money.

Johnson pardoned most of the confederate leaders and they regained their prior positions of state leadership. By doing this, Johnson unleashed a reign of terror on blacks that really was nothing short of attempted ethnic cleansing. Blacks were beaten, scalped, killed, set on fire with their bodies left in the streets to rot.

A representative from the Johnson administration traveled the south and reported seeing black women scalped, or had their ears cut off, thrown into rivers and drowned. Black men and boys were clubbed, beaten, shot, some chained on trees and burned to death. State to state this man witnessed the stench of dead decomposing black bodies hanging from tree limbs, lying in ditches, and piled up on the roadways.

But blacks were free, right?

Now if anyone goes off topic, I expect the post to be eliminated .

Andrew Johnson was a Democrat.. funny you just didn't happen to mention that..

 

[IM2]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

I don't think you really want to get into this with me Oldstyle. I will fuck you up. That's guaranteed. Those 600,000 farmers did not lose their property because of the great migration. On top of that blacks left to go north ,many times to escape wholesale murder and attempted ethnic cleansing by whites. Furthermore, southern states, specifically local governments, did as much as they could do to deny the rights of blacks to try moving north and away from the persecution because they did not want to lose cheap labor. These are things you don't want to discuss but if you keep talking shit, I will make an example out of you.

 

[Oldestyle]

Northern industrialists were taking out advertisements in black Southern newspapers filled with glowing accounts of the high wages and better living conditions in the North. They were desperate for workers because of WW1!

 

[IM2]

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

You're making my point for me. The slavery generation received substantial reparations. The people who actually suffered the wrongs, received the reparations.

If subsequent generations decided not to hold on to that land or decided that farming wasn't for them and sold that land to seek allegedly greener pastures in the inner cities of American metropolises, that doesn't change the fact that reparations have been paid.

No your point was not made. Whites continued committing atrocities which you owe us for. Subsequent generations did not just decide not to hold on to the land, they were fucking murdered and intimidated and land forcibly taken. You seem to ignore this in your attempt to gaslight but you don't get away with that here.

You want to cite one paragraph, but lets discuss the entire story.

So you start with this:

At its height, Black land ownership was impressive. At the turn of the 20th century, formerly enslaved Black people and their heirs owned 15 million acres of land, primarily in the South, mostly used for farming.

But you dare not discuss this part:

In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975.

What this says is 600,000 black farmers were forced off their property. Not that they decided to leave, chose to sell or determined that farming was not for them. On top of that, all blacks were not farmers.

So like I said, whites committed one atrocity which was slavery, then they committed another one after slavery by what was done to black landowners. Reparations are owed for each time an atrocity is committed. Had whites given blacks land and they really did what you claim, then reparations would not be asked for, but that is not what happened, you know that's not what happened therefore your point was not made and instead you have continued to validate my position by the fact I proved yours was incorrect and in fact false.

"In 1920, the 925,000 African-American farms represented 14 percent of the farms in America. Sadly, things turned for the worse, as 600,000 Black farmers were forced off their land, with only 45,000 Black farms remaining in 1975."
Are you familiar with the term "The Great Migration", IM2? There were very good reasons why the number of African-American farms went from 925,000 in 1920 to only 45,000 in 1975!

I know what the great migration was. My parents and grandmother on my dads side participated in it. But that was not the cause of 600,000 blacks losing their farms.

So you think someone offering to pay you 3 times what you were making at your old job busting your back all day in the hot sun wasn't a reason for the migration? I think any unbiased observer would disagree with you, IM2. If those high paying jobs hadn't existed in the North...your parents and grandmother would have probably stayed right where they were.

I suggest you drop this before you get embarrassed. Because in usual white boy fashion you want to present less than half the truth as an argument.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Sharecropping Became the Reality for Freed Slaves
Denied the opportunity to own their own small farms, most former slaves were forced to live under the system of sharecropping.

Life as a sharecropper generally meant living in poverty. And sharecropping would have been a bitter disappointment to people who once believed they could become independent farmers.


Sharecropping was a system of agriculture instituted in the American South during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It essentially replaced the plantation system which had relied on slave labor and effectively created a new system of bondage.

Under the system of sharecropping, a poor farmer who did not own land would work a plot belonging to a landowner. The farmer would receive a share of the harvest as payment.

So while the former slave was technically free, he would still find himself bound to the land, which was often the very same land he had farmed while enslaved. And in practice, the newly freed slave faced a life of extremely limited economic opportunity.

Generally speaking, sharecropping doomed freed slaves to a life of poverty. And the system of sharecropping, in actual practice, doomed generations of American in the South to an impoverished existence in an economically stunted region.

Beginning of the Sharecropping System
Following the elimination of slavery, the plantation system in the South could no longer exist. Landowners, such as cotton planters who had owned vast plantations, had to face a new economic reality. They may have owned vast amounts of land, but they did not have the labor to work it, and they did not have the money to hire farm workers.

The millions of freed slaves also had to face a new way of life. Though freed from bondage, they had to cope with numerous problems in the post-slavery economy.

Many freed slaves were illiterate, and all they knew was farm work. And they were unfamiliar with the concept of working for wages.

Indeed, with freedom, many former slaves aspired to become independent farmers owning land. And such aspirations were fueled by rumors that the U.S. government would help them get a start as farmers with a promise of "forty acres and a mule."

In reality, former slaves were seldom able to establish themselves as independent farmers. And as plantation owners broke up their estates into smaller farms, many former slaves became sharecroppers on the land of their former masters.

What Was Sharecropping?

Sharecropping was the system of farming that kept formerly enslaved people in a life of poverty in the years following the Civil War.

www.thoughtco.com

That was good. They too stupid to run their own farms. Remember those dumbass blacks that kicked all the white farmers out over in Africa? They nearly starved to death and had to beg the whites to come back and help them. After being in Africa for centuries they are still too stupid to feed themselves.

Same thing happened in Haiti. Seems they just cant catch a break without the white man they resent.

 

[westwall]

It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order.

Sounds like reparations have been paid already.

Only to people that cannot read.

It has been estimated that approximately 40,000 former slaves received grants of land under Sherman's order. But the land was taken away from them.

Just because you can read doesn't mean you can understand. You deserve NOTHING. Get that through your thick skull.

We deserve what you owe us. And that is conservatively estimated to start at 15 trillion dollars.

I don't owe you a damned thing. My daughter doesn't owe you a damn thing.

Now shut your pie hole and go get a job you lazy jack ass.

 

[westwall]

I can't be happy today because, er, back in 1900, er, well, something happened, something bad, yeah

Teflon history doesn't exist. We are a country because something happened in 1776. We live by rules established in 1787. So your pussy excuses don't cut it here and so:

Let me start with this, In 2015 the NYC sheet metal workers union began paying 13 million dollars in compensation to African Americans who were union members but did not get the same number of job assignments as white union workers from 1991 until 2006. Similar litigation is going on in Chicago with pipefitters and in Philly with operating engineers.

Now since we have whites talking about what they have paid for, lets set the record straight. African Americans have less wealth than whites by a large margin and there are many reasons for this all related to white racism. However the one I will be showing tonight is the discriminatory manner in which property was assessed in the black community by white assessors.

White tax assessors used different percentages in assessing property in black communities. By doing so they extracted excessive taxes from African Americans. City governments over assessed properties in black communities while underassessing them in white ones. Now understand that this assessed value is not going to be the actual market value of the property. This was found in Albany, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Norfolk and Ft. Worth just to name a few places..

In a 1973 study of10 large US cities HUD found a systemic pattern of overassessment in African American communities and an underassessment in white ones. The study showed that a mostly white neighborhood in Baltimore was one ninth that of a black community in Baltimore. In Philadelphia the tax burden in white south Philly was one sixth of that in the black community in North Philly. In Chicago, the white neighborhood of Norwood paid one half of what blacks did in Woodlawn, yet the Department of Justice did nothing.

So what we are seeing is that in OUR LIFETIMES blacks were over taxed and did not get the services back in return while whites paid less taxes for property and have received all proper services, community development, as well as school funding. So much for the tales of whitey paying for us.

Source- "The Color of Law", pgs. 168-171

LOL, are you a sheet metal worker?

No, he's a welfare collector.

 

[westwall]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

I don't think you really want to get into this with me Oldstyle. I will fuck you up. That's guaranteed. Those 600,000 farmers did not lose their property because of the great migration. On top of that blacks left to go north ,many times to escape wholesale murder and attempted ethnic cleansing by whites. Furthermore, southern states, specifically local governments, did as much as they could do to deny the rights of blacks to try moving north and away from the persecution because they did not want to lose cheap labor. These are things you don't want to discuss but if you keep talking shit, I will make an example out of you.

Ooooooh, yet another internet tough guy....

Give it a rest...Francis.

 

[IM2]

Northern industrialists were taking out advertisements in black Southern newspapers filled with glowing accounts of the high wages and better living conditions in the North. They were desperate for workers because of WW1!

I know what happened Oldstyle. The whole story. Again, you might want to drop this because you are leaving out very important information that paints the complete picture. Now I am giving you a fair chance to stop telling your half story before you get crushed. I suggest you take this option.

 

[Oldestyle]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

I don't think you really want to get into this with me Oldstyle. I will fuck you up. That's guaranteed. Those 600,000 farmers did not lose their property because of the great migration. On top of that blacks left to go north ,many times to escape wholesale murder and attempted ethnic cleansing by whites. Furthermore, southern states, specifically local governments, did as much as they could do to deny the rights of blacks to try moving north and away from the persecution because they did not want to lose cheap labor. These are things you don't want to discuss but if you keep talking shit, I will make an example out of you.

You're going to make an example of me? LOL Oh, god...you're amusing! Southern States DID do things to keep from losing their cheap labor but those things obviously didn't work! They couldn't force blacks to stay and they left IN DROVES! The population of blacks in northern cities increased by huge numbers! Detroit's went up by 600%! New York's by 500%! So where do you think all of those black people CAME from, IM2? Factories in the South? It was primarily an agrarian economy in the South at that point! Those immigrants were coming from farms.

 

[IM2]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

I don't think you really want to get into this with me Oldstyle. I will fuck you up. That's guaranteed. Those 600,000 farmers did not lose their property because of the great migration. On top of that blacks left to go north ,many times to escape wholesale murder and attempted ethnic cleansing by whites. Furthermore, southern states, specifically local governments, did as much as they could do to deny the rights of blacks to try moving north and away from the persecution because they did not want to lose cheap labor. These are things you don't want to discuss but if you keep talking shit, I will make an example out of you.

Ooooooh, yet another internet tough guy....

Give it a rest...Francis.

I am going to make examples out of you guys and I will have no mercy on your stupid white asses.

 

[IM2]

I know that doesn't work for your whole "reparations" narrative, IM2 but THAT is a part of our American history as well! That massive migration of blacks from the south to the north fundamentally changed our nation. You seem to have missed that though...didn't you?

I don't think you really want to get into this with me Oldstyle. I will fuck you up. That's guaranteed. Those 600,000 farmers did not lose their property because of the great migration. On top of that blacks left to go north ,many times to escape wholesale murder and attempted ethnic cleansing by whites. Furthermore, southern states, specifically local governments, did as much as they could do to deny the rights of blacks to try moving north and away from the persecution because they did not want to lose cheap labor. These are things you don't want to discuss but if you keep talking shit, I will make an example out of you.

You're going to make an example of me? LOL Oh, god...you're amusing! Southern States DID do things to keep from losing their cheap labor but those things obviously didn't work! They couldn't force blacks to stay and they left IN DROVES! The population of blacks in northern cities increased by huge numbers! Detroit's went up by 600%! New York's by 500%! So where do you think all of those black people CAME from, IM2? Factories in the South? It was primarily an agrarian economy in the South at that point! Those immigrants were coming from farms.

Again, you are about to get schooled and so just sit back and learn.